| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 86A/06 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2006 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | R Denmead ; H Kynaston |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Labour Inspector (McQueen) and Anor v Horlicks No.2 Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Labour Inspector (McQueen), Horlicks No.2 Ltd, Funnell |
| Summary | COSTS - Unsuccessful application by applicant Labour Inspector under s234 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Investigation meeting one day - Respondent sought significant contribution to costs of $35,047 - Considerable time expended by parties apart from investigating meeting - Reasonable total costs would be $7,200 - Usual two thirds" rule produced reasonable contribution of $4,800 - Contribution somewhat higher than awards normally made for similar cases but applicant's case largely without merit - While s234 applications were launched mostly into uncharted waters this particular vessel struggled to stay afloat from day one and probably should have remained in dock - Respondent also entitled to disbursements for travel costs" |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($4,800) ; Disbursements ($412.50)(air fares) |
| Statutes | ERA s234 |
| Cases Cited | Okeby v Computer Associates (NZ) Ltd [1994] 1 ERNZ 613;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 86a_06.pdf [pdf 11 KB] |